Is there any collected consensus on PR editing or is it all still a lot of shouting? I'm not asking for your own opinions, but if there's anywhere this is being discussed in some sort of abstractable manner.
I ask because next Wednesday I will be the Wikipedian at an episode of the CIPR TV webcast[1]. Basically a podcast with a camera. I have my own strong opinions, but rather than pushing those I'll be there to say something reasonably representative of what the community actually thinks, if there is any one thing it can be said to think. So is there any place to get a feel for that?
They're also interested in https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR which is a how-not-to-foul-up guide put together by WMUK. But of course that's descriptive and not normative.
- d.
[1] A past episode: http://www.cipr.co.uk/ciprtv/107801/focus-on-public-relations-practice
On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any collected consensus on PR editing or is it all still a lot of shouting? I'm not asking for your own opinions, but if there's anywhere this is being discussed in some sort of abstractable manner.
Came up at the London meetup. Opinion ranges talking to PR people to injecting formic acid into their eyeballs. So I'm going to stay we are still at the lot of shouting stage.
On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
They're also interested in https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR which is a how-not-to-foul-up guide put together by WMUK. But of course that's descriptive and not normative.
I think a line you could take is like this: there is that guide, which starts with chat and what Lord Bell and Jimbo say, and ends up with a list of Don'ts. It's all perfectly fine except that the order is completely back-to-front. "Don't share your password" with anyone? Merely a violation of terms of use of the site when there is megaphone diplomacy to do. Who is likely to share passwords? The classic solitary-geek-in-bedroom stereotype, or a busy person who would like his/her deputy to update something while he/she goes to a client meeting?
Metaphor time: some people think there should be a litmus test for who is allowed to edit, some think there should be a duck test, and some people think no test (just AGF until you can't, in other words). Duck test is closer to the truth for COI, and perceived COI should be a reason for switching to another test: no amount of good edits outweigh the bad. All sins are then mortal.
Good paid editors who have an actual COI are basically like poker players, aren't they? If they are smart they are only occasionally bluffing. That is why we hate the idea. Either we have to check all their edits, or we have to know more than they do about "tells".
HTH
Charles
On 13 June 2012 15:51, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any collected consensus on PR editing or is it all still a lot of shouting? I'm not asking for your own opinions, but if there's anywhere this is being discussed in some sort of abstractable manner.
Came up at the London meetup. Opinion ranges talking to PR people to injecting formic acid into their eyeballs. So I'm going to stay we are still at the lot of shouting stage.
Yep, sounds like I'll be trying to do NPOV live in real time. It'll be great fun, I'm sure.
At least I'll get to frighten my coworkers on Wednesday by showing up in a suit.
- d.
On 13 June 2012 15:51, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Came up at the London meetup. Opinion ranges talking to PR people to injecting formic acid into their eyeballs. So I'm going to stay we are still at the lot of shouting stage.
Following on from that discussion, one thing I think I suggested was that if we were to come up with a list of "good admin practices" towards PR folk, it might be easier to derive good practice that way.
If instead of saying "what do we think of PR people editing Wikipedia?" we said "under what circumstances should administrators act on the requests of PR people?", I think we might have a way out of the conundrum.
So, here's a real life example of how I've dealt with someone representing a PR company.
An acquaintance of mine who works for a PR company emailed me asking why the Wikipedia article about their company had been deleted. I explained that it was due to lack of notability, per the GNG, and explained in detail what AfD was.
They asked whether it was possible to appeal the decision in the AfD. I explained DRV to them. I said that while I can undelete the article, there wouldn't be community consensus for me to do so.
I suggested that if they want the article deleted, they locate five sources that specifically meet the requirements of the GNG.
I'm waiting on them to send said sources. If they do and I'm genuinely satisfied that these five sources meet GNG, I'll start a DRV that explains that I know this person in real life but don't have any business or financial connection with them, and list the sources.
This sidesteps all the canards about "paid editing"* and COI editing and so on. I think if we could find all the various common issues that happen with these kinds of editing and work out some rough formulas of how to resolve them, we can solve most of the problems without animus.
* There's nothing wrong with "paid editing" in my view. If Bill Gates were to set up a fund that paid a living wage to a group of Wikipedians to write neutral, high-quality, referenced articles on, say, science, maths and history, I don't see a problem. The problem with paid editing isn't the pay, it's the articles they are editing. Shilling is the problem, not being paid.
I had to explain this once, and my notes read something like this:
Skilled PR people know there's a story to tell. They think in terms of the story. But Wikipedia is a neutral source. We think in terms of significant facts. So there's a fundamental new kind of writing style and filter of what is important and appropriate, and how to communicate. It's the difference between your doctor's medical report and the launch of an iPad - they are fundamentally different style and focus. We use the word "encyclopedic" to describe our approach. It means we are neutral, we write based on facts and citations, we write densely to educate and not to persuade, we believe that if the facts are stated readers can and will assess them.
Where that works, is that many PR professionals are ethical, and have valid information that's relevant and cited. They are transparent, they seek help, they know they can't write as they usually do in Wikipedia and accept other's help to find what will fit. But a huge amount of PR just isn't relevant to Wikipedia or dresses up its subject, and it's there that the community is ruthless in removing and exposing abusers. Bad PR tries to use the medium to make a point. Good PR has points that fit the medium. Good PR on Wikipedia provides checkable facts of major significance to the topic.
*What does that mean for PR experts wanting to leverage Wikipedia? It means*
- Learn how to tell when your subject is relevant. Be selective, and if in doubt ask. You may find it isn't relevant. You wouldn't expect to find an article on fish farming in a medical website; you may not find your topic has a place on Wikipedia. Accept it.
- Learn to think "what would a reference source say". Many reference sources are very terse. They don't tell a story, they give key facts.
- Consider open disclosure. State whom you represent, and what information you'd like to add, seek help, and discuss it. If you engage other users the odds are very good your work will either be accepted and you with it, or you'll save a lot of time and get an opinion before making promises. Respect and trust are Wikipedia's currency. Leverage them. Don't be ashamed of writing for a client, but be honest that's what you want to do, and see if it helps.
- Above all, don't try to manipulate or play games. Don't use multiple accounts. Don't spam. After 11 years, Wikipedia and its community have got very good at finding abuse. It gets reported in the press. In many cases PR people have found, to their horror, that they have indeed added a valid subject - but the puffery got trimmed, and the negative side they never wanted exposed, was also added to balance it. Remember, you don't have any right to remove text or delete topics you added on Wikipedia, and your worst nightmare might be to find someone else has added to your masterpiece, the information you didn't want out there. With newspaper or peer reviewed citations. Or it's been discussed and deleted. There is no time limit afgter which work is safe, so it can be modified or deleted at any time if the community's attention is drawn to it.
*What sort of content does Wikipedia value?*
We have guidelines on the content that's suitable and unsuitable. In general, we document topics that the world at large has demonstrably already taken significant notice of, in some way or another. The Eiffel Tower or Apple Corporation - yes. The local town mayor or a band or product that hasn't made its mark - no. Information that can be authoritatively checked - yes. Information based on rumor or anecdote - no.
A lot of the time, articles do exist but information is sparse. If you have a product that won awards, but the details aren't published, then all that can be said is, "it has won awards". Consider what information might be useful and relevant for a reference source, and consider whether your client needs to make that information public so it's citable. Consider what you have or do that might meet the strict standards of Wikipedia, and if they don't - accept it. If you think they do - be open and honest, and ask.
*How to start?*
Wikipedia is community driven in a way many PR people can't imagine. Every topic has a talk page for questions, and there are noticeboards for new topics, and to discuss issues on existing ones. If you see an error, and it's clearly factually wrong, you can change it. If you think your action might be seen as biased, explain it on the discussion page. If you aren't sure, find a suitable noticeboard and raise it as a concern for others to look at. Seek second opinions - it shows you're being honest and stops misunderstandings. If you don't like the answer, ask for others to comment. See what they say.
Look up our basic rules and policies, and the spirit of the editing process, and if you want to make a habit of Wikipedia editing, invest some time and learn how it works. There are some good guides to it, but the best guide is to try it yourself. Pick something you don't have strong ties to, and try to see how it's covered and look for improvements. Invest the time, and ask for help.
Thank you.
Hope that's some use :)
FT2
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 15:51, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any collected consensus on PR editing or is it all still a lot of shouting? I'm not asking for your own opinions, but if there's anywhere this is being discussed in some sort of abstractable manner.
Came up at the London meetup. Opinion ranges talking to PR people to injecting formic acid into their eyeballs. So I'm going to stay we are still at the lot of shouting stage.
Yep, sounds like I'll be trying to do NPOV live in real time. It'll be great fun, I'm sure.
At least I'll get to frighten my coworkers on Wednesday by showing up in a suit.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/13/12, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
If instead of saying "what do we think of PR people editing Wikipedia?" we said "under what circumstances should administrators act on the requests of PR people?", I think we might have a way out of the conundrum.
One small correction there. Administrators hold no special position with regards to editing. All editors in good standing with a good grasp of policies and guidelines and how to edit can help answer such questions (such as questions or suggestions placed on the talk page of an article, as is one suggested approach). Administrators are only needed when you have deletions or undeletions taking place, and that isn't always the case (though I realise you were referring to that in your example).
Not that the public at large really get the distinction, though.
Carcharoth
On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I ask because next Wednesday I will be the Wikipedian at an episode of the CIPR TV webcast[1]. Basically a podcast with a camera. I have my
http://www.cipr.co.uk/ciprtv/108058/the-wikipedia-debate-will-two-communitie...
I think I won't get lynched by Wikipedians for that.
(God I look my age. The ponytail is going!)
- d.
On 21 June 2012 11:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(God I look my age. The ponytail is going!)
Mmm ... with Gemma Griffiths ... yes she beats you on hairdo.
Charles
Not bad David!
I tend to take a bit more of a liberal guideline on fixing obvious blatant vandalism: "Google CEO Larry Page is a great big poopyhead" should be reverted no matter what, even if you have a conflict of interest, or are Larry Page himself, and would have thought this is generally accepted in the community.
Then again, better cautious than crucified.
What I fully and completely agree with is your assessment of your ponytail.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 21 June 2012 11:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(God I look my age. The ponytail is going!)
Mmm ... with Gemma Griffiths ... yes she beats you on hairdo.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 21 June 2012 12:35, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
Not bad David!
I tend to take a bit more of a liberal guideline on fixing obvious blatant vandalism: "Google CEO Larry Page is a great big poopyhead" should be reverted no matter what, even if you have a conflict of interest, or are Larry Page himself, and would have thought this is generally accepted in the community.
We are wedded to consensus; yet David had to walk a thin line. We are not really used to giving prudential advice. In concrete situations I hold myself to giving "correct" advice. The thing is that I am probably using contextual cues that are hard to describe. (I'd better stop here since I feel a go metaphor coming on.)
Charles
On 21 June 2012 12:35, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to take a bit more of a liberal guideline on fixing obvious blatant vandalism: "Google CEO Larry Page is a great big poopyhead" should be reverted no matter what, even if you have a conflict of interest, or are Larry Page himself, and would have thought this is generally accepted in the community.
Nuance is a tricky one and is likely to be taken by the most annoying viewers as licence.
Then again, better cautious than crucified.
In this sense, media rabidness is useful :-)
What I fully and completely agree with is your assessment of your ponytail.
/me hides in room forever
- d.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 21 June 2012 12:35, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
Not bad David!
I tend to take a bit more of a liberal guideline on fixing obvious blatant vandalism: "Google CEO Larry Page is a great big poopyhead" should be reverted no matter what, even if you have a conflict of interest, or are Larry Page himself, and would have thought this is generally accepted in the community.
We are wedded to consensus; yet David had to walk a thin line. We are not really used to giving prudential advice. In concrete situations I hold myself to giving "correct" advice. The thing is that I am probably using contextual cues that are hard to describe. (I'd better stop here since I feel a go metaphor coming on.)
Charles
I do appreciate the difficulty here. Advice like the above should not be mistaken to also mean that one should revert "writer x of some obscure weblog described Larry Page as a great big poopyhead[1]". That should also be fixed, but a step back there and taking the talkpage route is the good idea there for a COI editor. That's a subtle point to explain to a Wikipedia newcomer.